-
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="jegga" data-cid="582647" data-time="1464167719">
<div>
<p>This is all very interesting and there's some valid viewpoints here but the flow of pictures of Venezuelan hotties in swimsuits seems to have stopped.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Someone fix that please before we proceed.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>You know, they've got these sites these days with names like porno dot com. They've all the boobs you need on them, more than you can imagine.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Tim" data-cid="582649" data-time="1464168516"><p>
You know, they've got these sites these days with names like porno dot com. They've all the boobs you need on them, more than you can imagine.</p></blockquote>
<br>
I've heard that but if this is a thread about nz politics , if every fifth post was a picture of a scantily clad hottie it would be way less depressing reading it .<br><br>
Just pm me any links to those other sites you mentioned though. -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="JC" data-cid="582595" data-time="1464160015"><p>
Norway is the one you're looking for. They've both got oil and proximity to large markets, so Venezuela would have been a total success if it had followed the example of Norway. Oh, and been populated by nice, sensible, even-tempered, honest Norwegians.<br><br>
Instead of, you know, psychos.</p></blockquote>
Norway would be seriously fucked without the oil. Yes the people are very nice and honest, but I would hesitate in calling them sensible. -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Tim" data-cid="582459" data-time="1464144805">
<div>
<p>Health spending has been creeping up. IIRC, it's up to nearly 10% of GDP from ~ 8% a decade ago. That's pretty high by OECD standards.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Health spending has been projected to double by 2050. It is going to be one of the challenges of the century.. People are living longer but advancements in health don't really save money. We have a system right now where we seem to pay whatever possible to keep people alive for as long as possible. It will be interesting to see if people continue to value longevity ahead of other things like welfare spending.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="hydro11" data-cid="582656" data-time="1464170027">
<div>
<p>Health spending has been projected to double by 2050. It is going to be one of the challenges of the century.. People are living longer but advancements in health don't really save money. We have a system right now where we seem to pay whatever possible to keep people alive for as long as possible. It will be interesting to see if people continue to value longevity ahead of other things like welfare spending.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>In general terms less so than when it is your own longevity or those that you love, I would guess.</p> -
<p>From <a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2016/05/better_to_be_poor_today_than_30_years_ago.html#comments'>Kiwiblog</a></p>
<p> </p>
<blockquote>
<p class=""><em>Income <a class="" href="http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/tag/inequality" title="Posts tagged with inequality">inequality</a> in the US has increased in the last few decades, but <a class="" href="http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/tag/inequality" title="Posts tagged with inequality">inequality</a> and well being are different. If everyone is living better than before, the fact that some people are much better off isn’t necessarily a bad thing. The recent <a class="" href="http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/tag/inequality" title="Posts tagged with inequality">inequality</a> has been a problem because, at least in income terms, a few have prospered while most stagnated. But income does not tell us much about living standards. Anecdotally it seems like living standards increased for everyone since the 1970s. Once, hardly anyone had air-conditioning, now everyone has mobile phones. <a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://www.slate.com/articles/business/the_united_states_of_debt/2016/05/overspending_isn_t_why_americans_are_in_debt_an_excerpt_from_elizabeth_warren.html'>Others argue</a> the poor are struggling like never before.</em></p>
<div><em>An article in the <a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/jep.30.2.3'>latest version </a>of the American Economic Review finds that Americans’ consumption has become more unequal too: The amount high-earning Americans spend grew much more than that of low income earners in the last 30 years. But that does not mean low earners are worse off. The figure below shows the share of low and high earners who own goods that used to be considered luxury items. Despite more inequality, low income Americans have better access to dishwashers, laundry, and entertainment goods.</em></div>
</blockquote>
<div> </div>
<div>Basically the conclusion is that it is better to be poor now in the USA than it ever has been. The only problem is the extent to which you believe inequality in and of itself is a problem and the extent to which you believe that measures to curb that inequality would prevent the progress which has made everyone better off.</div> -
<p>He's ok!</p>
<p> </p>
<p><a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/beauty/80376121/max-key-has-bleached-his-hair'>http://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/beauty/80376121/max-key-has-bleached-his-hair</a></p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="hydro11" data-cid="582656" data-time="1464170027">
<div>
<p>Health spending has been projected to double by 2050. It is going to be one of the challenges of the century.. People are living longer but advancements in health don't really save money. We have a system right now where we seem to pay whatever possible to keep people alive for as long as possible. <strong>It will be interesting to see if people continue to value longevity ahead of other things like welfare spending</strong>.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>I assure you I do. Unless Tim controls the budget spend</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="dogmeat" data-cid="582742" data-time="1464215440">
<div>
<p>I assure you I do. Unless Tim controls the budget spend</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>I will institute a regime whereby retirees cannot receive entitlements if they own significant property.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="hydro11" data-cid="582640" data-time="1464166712">
<div>
<p>I'm not spouting any ideology. I just don't see the point in criticising the government for not helping the poor enough if you can't make any judgements on the effectiveness of current welfare expenditure or if you can't articulate any proposed solutions to help the poor. How can anyone rebut your criticism if you believe the government isn't doing enough but you don't know what doing more looks like? As it happens, I think a good proportion of the 28.2 billion is wasted on the middle class. I might believe Labour a bit more on helping the poor if they didn't decide to give tax breaks to people earning $150,000 just because they decided to have 6 kids.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p>What judgements would you expect me to make on the effectiveness of government spending? I have not made a study of it so any solutions I propose are likely to be pretty trite and I am not Gareth Morgan that I'm proposing to waste time coming up with them.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I am saying that for the poorest people we have a choice to do more, do less, or do the same. I'm saying do more, because I see enough things that make me think, "Jesus - that shouldn't be happening!" There are threads about some of them.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Yes - it seems to me that quite a lot of welfare money is being given to people who don't really need it. For example, everything I've read suggests that we can't afford the liability of the current govt. superannuation, but the government doesn't dare do anything about it because it's a chronic vote-loser.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>For most moderately wealthy people in New Zealand, the marginal utility of most things the government can give them directly is pretty low. Availability of things like health services etc are important, but they can afford medical insurance to pay for treatments. Quite an important thing is reducing the likelihood of being robbed/raped/murdered/ crashed into by some methed-up lowlife. Being able to walk down the street without being accosted by panhandlers is quite valuable, as is reading news and watching current affairs TV that is a bit less fucking depressing.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Chris B." data-cid="582831" data-time="1464223671">
<div>
<p>What judgements would you expect me to make on the effectiveness of government spending? I have not made a study of it so any solutions I propose are likely to be pretty trite and I am not Gareth Morgan that I'm proposing to waste time coming up with them.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I am saying that for the poorest people we have a choice to do more, do less, or do the same. I'm saying do more, because I see enough things that make me think, "Jesus - that shouldn't be happening!" There are threads about some of them.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Yes - it seems to me that quite a lot of welfare money is being given to people who don't really need it. For example, everything I've read suggests that we can't afford the liability of the current govt. superannuation, but the government doesn't dare do anything about it because it's a chronic vote-loser.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>For most moderately wealthy people in New Zealand, the marginal utility of most things the government can give them directly is pretty low. Availability of things like health services etc are important, but they can afford medical insurance to pay for treatments. Quite an important thing is reducing the likelihood of being robbed/raped/murdered/ crashed into by some methed-up lowlife. Being able to walk down the street without being accosted by panhandlers is quite valuable, as is reading news and watching current affairs TV that is a bit less fucking depressing.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Fair enough. That's all pretty sensible. I think National have definitely dropped the ball on some long term economic issues. I just get a bit tired of the pro vs anti poor narrative.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Chris B." data-cid="582354" data-time="1464134310">
<div>
<p>If you mean micro- policies - or, in fact, social policies - then I'm inclined to agree. <strong> I increasingly get the impression that New Zealand is a great place to live if you're rich or, at least, comfortably off - but, it is pretty shit if you're dirt poor. </strong>Now, the righteous among us will say that being poor is not supposed to be fun and should give you the motivation to get off your fat, lazy arse and get rich. Harsh reality is that some people just can't - and we have had our feet on the throats of the dole-bludgers for thirty years, I'm inclined to think most should have been weeded out.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>A significant problem with this government, I think, is that with an ineffectual opposition and a pissant media, levels of accountability are sliding. The default option in their responses to questioning seems to me increasingly to brook no disagreement "we are doing a great job". They know they can get away with it. In the past week, you can see this in Judith Collins' response on Blessie Gotinco, Nathan Guy just talking past the questions on fish dumping, and that arrogant little arse Nick Smith on housing (Jesus I cannot stand Nick Smith)!</p>
<p> </p>
<p>One thing I will say about the equally arrogant Winston is that he's got a better eye for an opening than most and can at least land a punch.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p>So? </p>
<p>This is the stupid thing about the inequality debate, it is based on nothing but emotion, jealousy and western guilt.</p>
<p>It is human nature that some people will succeed in certain areas and some will not. Equality of opportunity in NZ has never been greater. The poor in NZ have never been as well off. When was this mythical time when we had no poor people, people who made poor choices didn't suffer for them or people who due to parents poor choices didn't have a disadvantage? In short.. when was this time in NZ history when human nature didn't exist?</p>
<p> </p>
<p>There is an ongoing narrative in NZ about inequality and it is complete and utter bullshit. UNLESS .... you believe in equality of outcomes over equality of opportunity.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>But even if you make the argument that because humans have always been like this.. why should we not look to change. Great... but again history has the answer. We are a cut throat bunch of bastards that at the end of the day care only about ourselves and those close to us. Nearly everything a human does is to suit itself or those close to us. Even the altruistic types do it out of self interest, as doing good deeds has been proven to be beneficial to the giver. It feels good to be kind and generous.... but very few do it to the level that is detrimental in a significant way to those close to them... cause it stops feeling good.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Add to the mix of bullshit in the narrative is the confusion over what should be done to help lifes 'losers', if they have proven to be incapable of succeeding without the charity of others.. what do you do? Charter schools is a great example. These things are specifically designed to solve the issue of a poor education 'tail'.. and the tool they use? Human instinct. The parents want there kids to be better, the schools make a profit (well they can).. yet what do we hear about them? Negativity... because it harnesses human instinct.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I am totally on board with equality of opportunity, but there is a limit. Because I am also totally on board with the concept of consequences for bad choices. The tricky balance is where do bad choices result of an inequality of opportunity?</p>
<p>It is lucky I am not in govt because I would be a brutal bastard. The problem is people and the govt are gutless, and would rather gnash and wail, ignore human nature and blame some rich bogeyman.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Humans fall through the cracks, always have done. Unless I missed the point in the history books where it discussed a golden time when there were no poor people?</p> -
<p>And there is NOBODY in NZ that is dirt poor. Provide me with a single example.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Also might pay if we could agree with a definition of dirt poor, how about only earn $10 USD a day? And doesn't have access to health care? No running water?</p> -
<p>That's concerning reading, Baron, on the day that the Mother of the Nation is quitting her job in a sulk. We should presumably all be concerned about the availability of welfare. :)</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Much of it is the narrative we've been given by Roger Douglas and Ruth Richardson and there is enough truth to it that it flies pretty easily. I don't disagree with a lot of it.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I'm not much concerned about equality because it is unachievable. On the one hand you've got Steffi and Max Key and on the other you've got the eight kids born to the meth-makers. Steffi and Max can make plenty of bad choices with minimal consequences because they have an enormous family social welfare net to catch them (Millie Holmes has made a good effort at cutting through her net). I'd give pretty long odds that the meth kids will be able to make enough good choices to lead anything other than fucked and miserable lives.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Question is - what do we do about it. As far as I can see, CYFS could be doing quite a lot better in giving the meth kids more chance of making good decisions - possibly by removing the parents from the scene - possibly by compulsorily sterilizing them (late in the day for that) - possibly by giving them a bit of extra coaching through school and other agencies.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Beyond that the real question is how severe the consequences of making bad decisions should be.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><span style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">"It feels good to be kind and generous.... but very few do it to the level that is detrimental in a significant way to those close to them... cause it stops feeling good."</span></p>
<p> </p>
<p><span style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">I can't remember quite how much "extra money in the pocket of ordinary New Zealanders each week", Bill English was thundering about when he delivered the famous tax cuts. I seem to recall thinking it was fuck all and translated to very few cups of flat white coffee. And then he failed to thunder very loudly about how much money he was taking out of the pockets of ordinary NZers when he ramped GST to pay for the cuts. But, that's another story.</span></p>
<p> </p>
<p><span style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">I don't know how many cups of cafe coffee are drunk each day in NZ, but I'd be surprised if it's less than a million. So I am of the opinion that we can collect about $5 million per day without remotely approaching the "detrimental in any significant way" threshold. Which adds up to nearly $2 billion per year - more than 5 percent of hydro's welfare budget. And I don't mind that being spent to make things a bit less miserable and desperate for the poor fuckers at the bottom - i.e. to somewhat lessen the consequences of their bad decisions.</span></p>
<p> </p>
<p><span style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">And, since I'm also not Cliff Richard, there are also some whose decisions are sufficiently bad that the consequences should be significantly more severe - and they will also be pleased that I am not in charge.</span></p> -
<p>Wow.. in other shocking news... the govt thinks the budget is great and the opposition think it is shit.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Who saw that twist coming????</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Chris B." data-cid="582934" data-time="1464234007">
<div><br><p>Question is - what do we do about it. As far as I can see, CYFS could be doing quite a lot better in giving the meth kids more chance of making good decisions - possibly by removing the parents from the scene - possibly by compulsorily sterilizing them (late in the day for that) - possibly by giving them a bit of extra coaching through school and other agencies.</p>
<p> </p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Yes to the first, I'd personally say yes to the second although the civil liberties brigade would go mental. And a definite yes to the third - help with books, uniforms, shoes, tutors etc. Anything that DOES NOT put extra cash into the parent's pocket. It shits me terribly when people on welfare keep popping out kids. I've got no problem with the Working for Families top up thing to help out working parents with childcare, kindy or whatever, but the government fully funding families that keep growing and growing and growing is disgusting.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Chris B." data-cid="582934" data-time="1464234007">
<div>
<p>I'd give pretty long odds that the meth kids will be able to make enough good choices to lead anything other than fucked and miserable lives.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Meth makers or takers. Fucked up.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I'm down with compulsory sterilisation BTW - after the third child its a free vasectomy for any man, or tubes tied for any woman.</p> -
I actually rate Bill English despite what I've said about the govts lack of policy. <br><br>
I think he does the stuff that allows key to be a populist avatar. <br><br>
I suspect though thatEnglish is a bit of a bleeding heart and that once he feels he can he's going to want to target spending at the areas he feels are most in need<br><br>
He's already very competent but he could if he has the balls leave a legacy as one of pur greatest Finance Ministers<br><br>
Obviously not on today's announcements -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="dogmeat" data-cid="583036" data-time="1464259327">
<div>
<p>I actually rate Bill English despite what I've said about the govts lack of policy.<br><br>
I think he does the stuff that allows key to be a populist avatar.<br><br>
I suspect though thatEnglish is a bit of a bleeding heart and that once he feels he can he's going to want to target spending at the areas he feels are most in need<br><br>
He's already very competent but he could if he has the balls leave a legacy as one of pur greatest Finance Ministers<br><br>
Obviously not on today's announcements</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Next year is the lolly scramble and I agree he's the brains of the outfit and a bit of a bleeding heart at the same time. </p>
NZ Politics